Saturday, February 20, 2016

Saturday, February 20, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Haider al-Abadi announces Shi'ite militias will take part in 'liberating' Mosul, Shi'ite militias blow up homes in Ramadi, THE NATION magazine descends further into the cess pool, and much more

The numbers -- 1 million refugees entering Europe by the end of 2015 -- surpassed comprehension long ago. The question is whether they have now also surpassed compassion.

The world now has more displaced people than
during World War II. Beyond Europe, another 2.5 million refugees are in
Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, while 4.5 million people remain displaced
within Syria and Iraq, where ISIS is most active.

This week, a very small number of refugees returned home to Iraq. Tuomas Forsell (REUTERS) reports, "Thousands of Iraqi
refugees who arrived in Finland last year have decided to cancel their
asylum applications and to return home voluntarily, citing family issues
and disappointment with life in the frosty Nordic country." WORLD BULLETIN adds that they will be returning to Iraq in weekly waves of 100 until all wanting to leave have returned.

In Muhanad Seloom's Tweet above, he's presented a chart on Iraq refugees explaining 61% left Iraq for Europe to escape from death, 2% were looking for jobs, 31% were seeking a better life and 6% chose another reason than the three previous ones.

Thousands of young people who sought refuge in Britain as
unaccompanied child asylum seekers have since been deported to war torn
countries that are in part controlled by Islamic State, the Taliban or
other repressive regimes, a Home Office minister has admitted.James Brokenshire said that over the past nine years 2,748 young
people – many of whom had spent formative years in the UK, forging
friendships and going to school – had been returned to the likes of
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.The bulk – some 2,018 – have concerned Afghanistan, but an
investigation has found that 60 young people have also been deported to
Iraq since 2014, the year so-called Islamic State began its brutal
regime in swathes of the country.

Of course, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has welcomed refugees but with the conditional note that when the war in Iraq and Syria is over, the refugees should return home. That shows many things -- some would say poor manners, for example -- including a belief that the Iraq War will end -- hasn't so far.

The Arabic explains that, in full of the Iraqi military, Shi'ite militias are blowing up homes in Ramadi.

Sorry, they're blowing homes in 'liberated' Ramadi.

IRAQI SPRING MC notes the bombings and states they're taking place with the cooperation of the Iraqi army.

This reality wasn't conveyed on Wednesday when the top US commander in Iraq, Col Steve Warren, held a press conference, "Moving on to the operational update. In Ramadi, the removal of IEDs and
other hazards continues. Police and security forces are going back
through the city to begin making it safe for civilians to return."

Blowing up houses is "making it safe for civilians to return"?

This is what happened in Tikrit following 'liberation,' it's what's happening in 'liberated' Ramadi so Muhanad Seloom is right to wonder: "what Would happen to Mosul?"

Alsumaria reports that the Governor of Nineveh Province, Atheel al-Nujaifi states that the Popular Mobilization Forces will not be welcome in Mosul. The Popular Mobilization Forces is a fancy name for the Shi'ite militias that Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has folded into the Iraqi forces. al-Nujaifi notes that not only is this his stance but that it is also what al-Abadi has been stating.

Has been saying.

That changed today.

ALL IRAQ NEWS reports Haider appeared before the Parliament today and announced that the Popular Mobilization Forces would be part of the forces sent in to liberate or 'liberate' Mosul.

Haider further stated that he was under no pressure from the US government to speed up the process of liberating or 'liberating' Mosul.

Mosul, for those who've forgotten, was seized by the Islamic State in June of 2014 -- nearly two years ago. A functioning government would have attempted to rescue the citizens of Mosul long ago.

Haider also declared to Parliament today that no US troops would be present for the liberation of Mosul . . .

except as trainers and advisors.

It's interesting, though.

With Tikrit, the US refused to provide any support at all until certain militias -- heavily linked to Tehran -- were removed from the area.

This led other Shi'ite militias to walk as well.

So now the US government is okay with providing support to these groups?

Wednesday, in his press briefing, Col Steve Warren had this exchange with MILITARY TIMES' Andrew Tilghman.Q: Yes, as you move your focus over towards the
Tigris River and thinking about Mosul, that's an area we've associated
more with the -- the militia organizations.

I'm wondering, has anything really changed since, for example, Tikrit
last year in terms of your plans for working with those groups or not
with those groups? Is there any discussion of maybe some of those
militia groups taking part in the training? Is there any -- is there
any change in the policy of not wanting to work with them at all and
sort of differentiating between the two types of militias that you will
and you won't work with?

COL. WARREN: Well, so, I mean, our focus is on the Iraqi security
forces, right? I mean, that's who we work with. We work with the Iraqi
security forces. Now, there are pieces of the PMF, for example, you
know, the Sunni tribal fighters who enroll in the popular mobilization
force program who, of course, we're going to work with.

So, but really, all of it's channeled and funneled and focused through
the ministry of defense, right? I mean, the end question is whoever is
working directly under the control of the ministry of defense, that's
who we'll support. So I think that's kind of been our policy all along.
That will continue to be our policy.

Meanwhile, there's Falluja.

Said to have been controlled by the Islamic State for over two years now and the civilians there have been 'assisted' by the government shelling their homes.

Oh, yes, in September of 2014, Haider announced that these bombings -- War Crimes -- would cease. But they never did.

Sunni tribesmen have attacked Islamic State militants in the
Iraqi city of Fallujah, the Iraqi military and local officials said
Friday, overrunning and burning one of their headquarters as resentment
against the group grows.After the unrest in two
neighborhoods, Issa al-Issawi, the mayor in exile of the city 45 miles
west of Baghdad, warned that there would be “mass slaughter” unless the
tribesmen received assistance.

The flare-up was the
first notable sign of armed opposition to the Islamic State inside the
city since the group took control of Fallujah more than two years ago.
Ill will against the group has been mounting in recent months amid what
the United Nations has described as a growing humanitarian crisis inside
the city.

Salam Faraj (AFP) adds that there may have been a more specific inciting incident:[Local official Issa] Sayir said that the gunfight reflected tensions resulting from
increasingly difficult living conditions caused by Fallujah’s isolation
by the security forces.A police lieutenant colonel gave a
different account, saying the clashes started after Al-Hisba members
accused a woman in Al-Nizaiza market in central Fallujah of misconduct
because she had failed to cover her hands with gloves.

Fighting erupted in the ISIS-stronghold of
Fallujah on Friday after the extremist militants attacked a local woman
for not covering her hands, according to Iraqi officials. "The clashes started when tens of Fallujah men
stood against ISIS militants who started to beat a woman in a Fallujah
market because she was not wearing gloves," said Sabah Karhoot, the
chairman of the governing council of Anbar province where the city is
located. "Therefore, the men could not stand and do nothing."

Thursday, Lt Gen Charles Q Brown Jr. hosted a press conference from Qatar. He declared, "Additionally, as you
heard yesterday during the press briefing by Colonel Warren, we continue
to support ground operations. The recent successes of the Iraqi
security forces in clearing Ramadi comes after months of supporting
ground forces with close air support. Ramadi's not the only success, though. Airstrikes have been vital in
partner force operations to take back Sinjar in northern Iraq and
Hasakah and Tishrin Dam in Syria."

Of course, Ramadi's not a success -- not with the Iraq military watching as the Popular Mobilization Forces go around blowing up homes.

But these bombings that Brown's so proud of have not accomplished anything.

Yet, they continue -- and they continue to rip apart an inhabited country that someday, somehow is going to have to try to rebuild.

Today, the US Defense Dept announced/bragged/claimed:

Airstrikes in Iraq

Fighter, attack, ground-attack,
and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 16 airstrikes in Iraq,
coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Baghdadi, a strike destroyed an ISIL weapons cache and three ISIL rocket systems.

-- Near Huwayjah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Hit, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel entrance.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck
two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed four ISIL fighting
positions, four ISIL assembly areas, an ISIL petroleum site, and two
ISIL command and control nodes.

-- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed four ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Ramadi, three strikes
struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL anti-air
artillery piece, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL
vehicle bomb making facility, five ISIL staging areas, and an ISIL
bed-down location.

But the fact remains that whoever’s elected this year is
nearly guaranteed to inherit the war on ISIS that President Obama
launched back in 2014. He or she will be the fifth consecutive US
president to preside over some variety of military intervention in
Iraq—a dour chapter that’s already continued for at least 25 years, dating back to the Gulf War. (And that’s not even counting the US role in the bloody Iran-Iraq war before that.)
The good news is that Sanders sent some promising
signals about his judgment on the last US invasion before it was even
launched—in fact, probably even more so than he’s usually credited for.
But the bad news is that his statements on the latest iteration of the
conflict have been all over the map. In his bumbling calls for a “Muslim
coalition” to stop ISIS, he’s shown none of the acumen that so
distinguished him over 13 years ago.Without a plan to resolve the ISIS war responsibly, the US war in Iraq
could reverberate through yet another generation. If Sanders is elected,
that’ll be a grim asterisk to his “political revolution” indeed.

If that garbage appeared at a military think tank, no one would be surprised.

Instead, it's from jizz in his pants Petey Certo and it's published by THE NATION.

That's what happens when Democrats are in charge of the White House (war), THE NATION goes all wobbly and loses any strong voice at all.

The 'responsibly' is a lie.

It's the lie that continues war every damn time, even when everyone knows it's time to end it, the 'responsibly' qualifier keeps it going.

If you're my husband and you're beating the crap out of me?

I'm going to end that marriage.

Responsibly?

No, immediately.

By the same token, there is no 'win' here.

There is nothing but more destruction.

But THE NATION is a cathouse, a bordello of whores and FPIF is a joke.

Does Phyllis Bennis really find pride being associated with what is now a war mongering outlet that let's just sprouted pubes boys pretend that they have any perspective to offer?

Petey's a little idiot who pulls his pud to Barack Obama and thinks that makes him special or smart.

He's just one more whorish idiot arguing for the continuation of war.

We all suffer when liars claim a crime can be ended "responsibly."

We all suffer as the crime continues while these liars look for their way out -- their 'responsible' way out.

That's only one example and you can find many more including many US outlets (which I didn't feel like giving a link to).

Will FAIR's COUNTERSPIN comment in the new episode out later today about how the MSM was happy to let Donald be in peace when he was just claiming to be against the Iraq War but when he started calling out Bully Boy Bush and the original decision and what is was built upon, suddenly the same media that sold the illegal war snapped awake and went after him?

No, of course they won't.

Ethics?

It's something FAIR sorely lacks.

Which is why they turned their heads and ignored the big story of a 'reporter' sleeping with a US government official and letting him vet her copy -- something that got Gina Chon fired.

But the official, when the scandal broke, had just been nominated to be US Ambassador to Iraq by Barack Obama so FAIR and the rest looked the other way.

They have no ethics, they have no values.

Which is why all this time is being spent on Donald Trump right now.

So Donald was for it before he was against it?

That would make him John Kerry (or have we all forgotten that ridiculous statement?).

Or maybe he was for it at one point in 2002 and then against it before it started?

That would make him Al Gore -- though we're never supposed to point that out.

The 'noble' lie being that if Al Gore had made it into the White House (which would have required a fight that Al clearly was not up to), then the US would never have gone to war with Iraq.

So you just vanish the public speech Al gave in support of the Iraq War.

The media's firestorm over this has two larger implications beyond their own need to attack anything that would question their selling of the Iraq War all those years ago. (They continue to sell it today.)

One implication would be: Hillary's not fit to be president.

If the decision to oppose it is so important that we're in stop-the-presses mode where all that can be focused on is Donald Trump, then it really does matter greatly where you stood on this originally.

And, as we all know, Hillary was for the Iraq War. In 2002. In 2003. In 2004 . . .

Another implication.

How does this play with voters?

I was against the Iraq War and spoke out as early as February2003 (a month before it started).

As such, I remember the public attitude.

Not everyone had firm and consistent views.

Might this non-stop coverage of Trump's position -- changed or evolving or whatever -- actually create sympathy in a public which saw itself go from support of the war to turning firmly against it?

Those would be topics a left media could explore.

If the left media wasn't devoting their time to electing Hillary.

Of course, a real left media would be spending time weekly to address that dropping bombs on a country does not result in peace, that these bombs kill civilians (whether governments admit it or not), that drone attacks do not breed peace, etc, etc.

But these big topics will be pushed aside by KPFA, et al to instead enlist in electing a Democrat.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Thursday, February 18, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, US House Rep Brad Sherman wants to kill some Iraqi civilians, the Iraqi government prepares to carry out more death sentences and much more.

Today, the US Defense Dept announced/boasted/claimed:

Strikes in IraqFighter, ground-attack, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted
12 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s
government:-- Near Albu Hayat, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed nine ISIL rocket rails.-- Near Fallujah, one strike destroyed an inoperable piece of
partner nation equipment, at the request of the Iraqi government, in
order to prevent its capture by ISIL forces.-- Near Makhmur, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL assembly area.-- Near Mosul, one strike produced inconclusive results.-- Near Qayyarah, one strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb.-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL recoilless
rifle.-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL light machine gun.-- Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes destroyed an ISIL heavy
machine gun and an ISIL vehicle and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target.

These bombings are supposed to end the Islamic State in Iraq. No one's ever supposed to think that through or examine it too closely because the 'logic' falls apart quickly.

And once upon a time, US President Barack Obama grasped that.

He knew bombings were not going to defeat the Islamic State.

He ordered bombings to start in August of 2014. Shortly after, August 11, 2014, he made some remarks while vacationing on Martha's Vineyard.

US President Barack Obama: But as I said when I authorized these operations, there is no
American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only
lasting solution is for Iraqis to come together and form an inclusive
government -- one that represents the legitimate interests of all
Iraqis, and one that can unify the country’s fight against ISIL.Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort.
Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President. Today, President
Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi. Under
the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new
government that can unite Iraq’s different communities.

So all this time later, Mosul remains in the hands of the Islamic State.

But rest assured, Brad Sherman is on the job.

Last Wednesday, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing,
Sherman felt the need to pontificate to Barack Obama's Special Envoy
Brett McGurk.

About?

Mosul.

Brad's bothered, you understand, by the electricity.

Why, he wanted to know, was the Iraqi government supplying civilians in Mosul with electricity?

Brad would just cut it off.

They've been occupied for almost two years.

Could be for two more years more as far as anyone knows.

But it don't bother Brad.

He also didn't understand why more bombs were not being dropped by the US and why, specifically, Mosul wasn't being bombed.

"Civilians!" the world collectively screams back.

Oh, Brad didn't forget about them.

He just doesn't give a damn about them.

Why when France was occupied, he insisted, the allies killed at least 90,000 civilians while they bombed.

Brad Sherman is deeply disturbed.

Some argue the US government has done nothing at all -- or at least nothing to brag of. Earlier this week, at ALGEMEINER, Joseph Puder argued:The Obama administration has provided the Iraqi army with military
hardware worth billions of dollars. Iraq’s main power brokers are Iraqi
Shiite militias, who are loyal to Iran. This raises the question as to
why American taxpayers should provide an ally of Iran, and a potential
enemy of the US, with such enormous aid.The Iraqi army’s shameful performance against the Islamic State
(ISIS) and its abandonment of vast territory to ISIS, along with the
squandering of huge quantities of US supplied arms, brings into question
the suitability of the Iraqi army to take on ISIS. The Iraqi-Shiite
militias may very well turn against the US in the not-too-distant
future. Moreover, some Shiite militias have been shown to be as brutal
and blood-thirsty as ISIS.

For those who missed this week's news, the Iraqi forces who are commanded by Baghdad will be thinning out. Seems the economic crisis or 'crisis' will mean funding will be cut so those who are about to face life without payment will be leaving.

By contrast, as the central government of Baghdad has repeatedly withheld the federal monies from the KRG, the Peshmerga have had to fight without pay.

And most have done it.

Because this isn't Iraqis being sent to Jordan or Kuwait to fight there.

This is about Iraqis taking back their own country.

Or that's how the Peshmerga tended to see it.

It was a battle to save the country.

And, payment or no payment, the Peshmerga were in.

Sadly, the same can't be said for Baghdad's forces.

And Baghdad's forces include the militias who are out of control and who are noted in the following Tweet:

REUTERS notes that "death
sentences in Iraq are often handed down after very brief trials in which
defendants are poorly represented, seldom allowed to give evidence and
are often tortured into making confessions that are then used against
them."

The
40 death sentences handed down today in Iraq after a fundamentally
flawed mass trial shows a reckless disregard for justice and human life,
said Amnesty International, and brings the total sentenced in 2016
close to 100.Iraq’s courts have imposed at least 52 death sentences since Jan. 1,
2016. Today a further 40 individuals were sentenced to death as the
verdict of a high-profile anti-terror trial is delivered in Baghdad.“For Iraqi courts to hand down 92 death sentences in just six
weeks is a grim indicator of the current state of justice in the
country,” said James Lynch, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director.“The vast majority of the trials have been grossly unfair, with many
of the defendants claiming to have been tortured into ‘confessing’ the
crimes. These allegations must be urgently investigated and a re-trial
that meets international fair trial standard should be ordered.”Today’s trial involved 47 individuals accused of involvement in the
Speicher massacre, in which at least 1,700 military cadets from Speicher
Military camp, near Tikrit, were brutally killed by militants from the
armed group calling itself Islamic State (IS) in June 2014.Iraq’s Federal Judicial Authority confirmed that 40 people were
sentenced to death under the 2005 anti-terrorism law and seven were
released due to lack of evidence.More than 600 arrest warrants were issued by the Iraqi authorities in
connection with the Speicher massacre. The Central Criminal Court of
Iraq (CCCI) went on to announce that it would consolidate all cases
relating to the Speicher crimes into one case – opening the door to mass
trials. In July 2014, 24 men were sentenced to death by hanging, under
the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Law in connection with the massacre.“These mass, expedited trials raise serious questions about whether
the Iraqi authorities really want to uncover the truth behind these
abhorrent attacks, or whether they simply want to create the illusion
that justice has been done. Once again we are seeing basic human
rights trampled upon as the authorities circumvent fair trials in the
name of national security,” said Lynch. Amnesty International
is calling on the Iraqi authorities to halt the ratification of death
sentences and immediately establish an official moratorium on executions
with a view to abolishing the death penalty.BackgroundBefore a death sentence can be carried out, the President of Iraq
must ratify it. Former President Jalal Talabani refused to ratify any
death sentences leading to a backlog of more than 600 cases.Last year, the new President Fuad Ma’sum came under significant
pressure from MPs and the public to ratify death sentences, particularly
following the Speicher massacre. A Special Committee was set up in the
Presidency Office to manage the backlog. In July 2015, Amnesty International called on the Iraqi President to
to halt the ratification of death sentences that would pave the way for
executions. Many of those sentenced to death have been subject to
grossly unfair trials.

READ MORE

THE ATLANTIC has long accused Donald Trump of being loose with the truth or less than honest when he says he was against the Iraq War from the start.

So I'm less than amazed or bothered by their recent coverage.

But I do find it interesting how, following last Saturday's debate where he denounced the Iraq War, denounced Bully Boy Bush and even stated 9/11 happening on Bully Boy Bush's watch didn't indicate national security bonafides, following all of that, suddenly so many in the press want to question Trump on Iraq.

Again, THE ATLANTIC has been doing so all along.

But these new outlets piping up?

Take THE WALL ST. JOURNAL.

It's a little bit personal for them, isn't it?

Having sold the illegal war.

Having enshrined Bully Boy Bush as a leader.

My own thoughts on Trump and Iraq?

I started speaking out publicly against the Iraq War in February 2003. A month before it started.

A number of voices silenced themselves after the war started.

I have no idea where Trump falls.

I have met many people who, in the fall of 2004, for example would speak out and say they were opposed but, for whatever reason, they were silent.

Guess what?

I listened to that.

I didn't cross examine them or ask for proof.

I'm against the Iraq War -- the ongoing Iraq War.

If someone was against it, I was just glad their voice was joining the growing chorus.

It's a disaster, today, it is a disaster.

I'm not voting for Trump -- that's been noted all along, I can't stand him -- but I'd say he does more right now denouncing it than Hillary with her idiotic 'I can fix it with my three point plan' nonsense.

I'm criticizing news outlets here.

Not blogs or bloggers.

Why?

The blogs and bloggers are whores.

That's reality.

Bob Somerby won't touch the topic of Iraq today.

He won't note how stupid bombing Iraq to 'defeat' the Islamic State is.

He won't critique Barack's plan or 'plan.'

Nor will the other idiots and whores.

Nor did they stand up when Nouri al-Maliki's government openly declared war on Iraq's LGBT community.

If that had happened under Bully Boy Bush, DAILY KOS would have gone on the topic non-stop, for example.

But they're whores, cheap, tacky whores.

They only care about the Iraq War when it can be used against the other side.

So when Barack is sworn in, they became the worst, they became as bad as the right-wing under Bully Boy Bush which went around insisting there was "success" in the illegal war.

The following community sites -- plus NPR, LATINO USA, THE GUARDIAN and the ACLU -- updated:

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.